Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/
Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Mon, 02 May 2022 21:42 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA038C14F746; Mon, 2 May 2022 14:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.857, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WpBG-sR-Ifcw; Mon, 2 May 2022 14:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08DC6C159A1F; Mon, 2 May 2022 14:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Ksc4X4nlNz1pQ0C; Mon, 2 May 2022 14:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1651527724; bh=mUW2dVJG8WSyIE5wjc9Ut5Bd8QkJpF6IEfk21f4XQlA=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=IYLV51Ol6Rshz/MhFI439Ugwhsqp1VDiatjthQbONNyZDZ0hHKJ+j5WTCazD0+t6r Y0J8UQzkYY8kEEkcNsP/iP8tCfRJvYYYU7aVl/nPiRAtp6WajkEU9nX41ljRufa7NL hTaJiewPxz2Gcou1hlZIp9ULJiMEp4kpamkzJrRE=
X-Quarantine-ID: <Cnh8FJv36sWB>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.20.80] (50-233-136-230-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Ksc4V5vVnz1pPyp; Mon, 2 May 2022 14:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------mAM8aUy4uzRau0zEfjuojM5r"
Message-ID: <3dba81e6-3a42-3643-dc98-a750891d47f5@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2022 17:42:01 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com>, Med Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Cc: James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
References: <MN2PR13MB4206C91446BA5FBBDA69E233D2FF9@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CAMFZu3NCCmj4u75taEzBiMmkMQ0YrmK5KsUToSOKfwX1yBxePA@mail.gmail.com> <26916_1649050778_624A849A_26916_245_1_aa5a0049026247d9980f4ebbc8c5ac0b@orange.com> <CY4PR11MB1672FCF27DA2A4822C6E1B40DAED9@CY4PR11MB1672.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <11111_1649774342_62558F05_11111_493_4_a734de5265ca498bbabf9805a6eaf91d@orange.com> <CAMFZu3N03E-nWYJNik91e+X=gr3s2TVF03ZCM8i02ru4_Q82og@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmWUZcUN2jnpUuyhTmkNpwvh=2prBZDGinWe2v-b3n8+MQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMFZu3N5+GdFk13oWbi8F1qhgRNsKpSFwza61SG2oeMW9TvaLQ@mail.gmail.com> <525_1649935673_62580539_525_487_2_d0a4949b3d9c4424a0261012c7ce6188@orange.com> <CA+RyBmX3MdqVX5=hEsO+9SMbpXw+enwnm_qb4+-6smqbsTPPwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMFZu3NZBgKXHrktn04LbwW33S+j+kGG5hx2A+1+jJ8aasCRag@mail.gmail.com> <14665_1651047374_6268FBCD_14665_484_6_addb2a5f712d4307a463d0582cc0a8a0@orange.com> <CAMFZu3O-vEAnrBE6rhuFh_POPD5E2i_bHvdBx=GUjRKxk3AOYw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMFZu3O-vEAnrBE6rhuFh_POPD5E2i_bHvdBx=GUjRKxk3AOYw@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/fzAfOHS7EqpFgM_gN8cVJmACm0Y>
Subject: Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2022 21:42:09 -0000
(Sorry, catching up on some emails I missed.) If we want to allow multiple iOAM headers (up to the WG) then I think the document needs to be clear on the meaning. If there are multiple are all supposed to be processed, just the top one until something removes it, a random one of the receivers choice? (Yes, that last is unlikely.) Yours, Joel On 4/27/2022 4:44 AM, Shwetha Bhandari wrote: > Hi Med, > > Thanks for the confirmation and quick review. > > On, > > This means the new requested TBD_IOAM value will also be a valid > next protocol. However, I wonder whether IOAM in IOAM in NSH is > really something you want to have. If not, I suggest the text is > updated to exclude it from the allowed value in the above excerpt. > > Per earlier discussion in this thread, quoting Frank's mail here for > reference: > > In addition, I don’t think that draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh would be > the appropriate place to discuss and restrict deployment options. > E.g., I’m not sure why we’d want to restrict a deployment to using > a single IOAM header only. E.g., one could think of using > different headers for different namespaces or groups of namespaces > for operational reasons. IMHO, such a discussion – if we really > need it - would belong into draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment, > rather than into a draft that defines the encap of IOAM into NSH. > > I think the text on Next Protocol should be as is. We should not add > restrictions on number of IOAM headers that could be added to the packet. > > Thanks, > Shwetha > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:46 PM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: > > Hi Shwetha, all, > > The changes look great. Thanks. > > There is one specific point not addressed in previous replies. > This is related to this text: > > Next Protocol: 8-bit unsigned integer that determines the > type of > > header following IOAM. The semantics of this field are > > identical to the Next Protocol field in [RFC8300]. > > This means the new requested TBD_IOAM value will also be a valid > next protocol. However, I wonder whether IOAM in IOAM in NSH is > really something you want to have. If not, I suggest the text is > updated to exclude it from the allowed value in the above excerpt. > > Other than that, I think that the draft is ready to move forward. > > Cheers, > > Med > > *De :* Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com> > *Envoyé :* mercredi 27 avril 2022 10:06 > *À :* James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>; > sfc-chairs@ietf.org > *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; > Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; > sfc@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org; Tal Mizrahi > <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh@ietf.org; > Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > *Objet :* Re: [sfc] WGLC for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NGDq-VFOnDYhCxrwRIz1KbT5hb_RKKqKigks-nyqK1RKq5UgpwytWb7clzmlN3o0X0XBWL0KnE3aQfL7wrrx5ZezQN_YdhHpnETuWA$> > > Dear SFC chairs, > > A new version of the draft I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh has been > submitted per the discussion in this thread. > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-09 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-09__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NGDq-VFOnDYhCxrwRIz1KbT5hb_RKKqKigks-nyqK1RKq5UgpwytWb7clzmlN3o0X0XBWL0KnE3aQfL7wrrx5ZezQN_YdhFd29kDew$> > > > Can we please progress this draft to IESG if there are no further > comments? > > Thanks, > > Shwetha > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 6:41 PM Greg Mirsky > <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Shwetha, > > thank you for the proposed resolution. I agree with Med, > direct normative reference to I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet seems > like the logical conclusion of our discussion of the use of > the NSH O bit. Please note that we're referring to > I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet in the Active SFC OAM draft, e.g.,: > > The O bit in NSH MUST be set, according to > [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet]. > > Regards, > > Greg > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 4:27 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> > wrote: > > Hi Shwetha, > > I prefer we go for an explicit reference to > I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet rather than “any update to > RFC8300”. This is consistent with the usage in the other > OAM draft. > > Thank you. > > Cheers, > > Med > > *De :* Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com> > *Envoyé :* jeudi 14 avril 2022 12:06 > *À :* Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > *Cc :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; Frank Brockners (fbrockne) > <fbrockne=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; > sfc-chairs@ietf.org; sfc@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org; James > Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>; Tal Mizrahi > <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh@ietf.org > *Objet :* Re: [sfc] WGLC for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!LWQuxxxKpUum5gUoK44-znjehj2YRtlGMOATxfRVSc-7JOrPsk4BA4iP0oLQE4d0rObPhOCG_1iiipywftwMIMOEWh8lJI4$> > > Hi Med, Greg, > > How about this text : > > “The O-bit MUST be handled following the rules in and any > updates to [RFC8300] ." > > Given that I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet will update RF8300 and > there could be others in future? > > Thanks, > > Shwetha > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 9:24 PM Greg Mirsky > <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Shwetha, > > I believe that the text you've quoted is helpful. I > would suggest changing references from [RFC8300] to > [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet] throughout that paragraph. > > Regards, > > Greg > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 7:56 AM Shwetha Bhandari > <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com> wrote: > > Med, > > Thanks for the details: this is exactly what we > had before the latest revision: > > *4.2 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-06*section-4.2__;Iw!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIpJPfzrvI$>. > IOAM and the use of the NSH O-bit* > > [RFC8300] defines an "O bit" for OAM packets. > Per [RFC8300 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8300__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIpEB5AbbE$>] > the O > > bit must be set for OAM packets and must not be > set for non-OAM > > packets. Packets with IOAM data included MUST > follow this > > definition, i.e. the O bit MUST NOT be set for > regular customer > > traffic which also carries IOAM data and the O > bit MUST be set for > > OAM packets which carry only IOAM data without > any regular data > > payload. > > This was removed as per the discussion in this > thread. Please check > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/srMit5zE8UseNOhxknAw_dqvj6M/ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/srMit5zE8UseNOhxknAw_dqvj6M/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!NBsrzhHEf0Y_-Sindy74K4QDA6EWJjx35STSH-UxEi3eYIX0GVli9Sn1azrOPJVcI2qUzWfezK_1D2RpyFB_FOIp-CeLfeA$> > > It looks like we are going in a loop here. This > definition of SFC OAM packet to include the OAM > data that comes in inner packets via the next > protocol header chain is introduced in > draft-ietf-sfc-oam-packet to update the RFC8300. > > Jim, What are you thoughts on this? Should we > reintroduce the above text ? > > Thanks, > Shwetha > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > > Thank you. > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. >
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Shwetha Bhandari
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Shwetha Bhandari
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Shwetha Bhandari
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… xiao.min2
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Shwetha Bhandari
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Shwetha Bhandari
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Shwetha Bhandari
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Joel Halpern
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Joel Halpern
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Joel Halpern
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Shwetha Bhandari
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Shwetha Bhandari
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Shwetha Bhandari
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Joel Halpern
- Re: [ippm] [sfc] WGLC for https://datatracker.iet… Shwetha Bhandari